[LTPC-discussions] An Easy Exercise
Bob Hadidian
ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:10:49 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C34940.2DD0D060
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A "client" is some one who has purchased a policy. If they got turned =
down, they are not a client of LTPC. Service them.
LTPC does not, nor did not sell Short Term care, Home care only, =
Annuities, Life insurance, Med-sups, or a number of Senior market =
products. There is no conflict if LTPC does not market the product. =
Service them.
That is why it is called a NON-COMPETE clause.
The ONLY conflict is if you go to someone you sold and placed in a LTC =
product and replace the policy. That is known as churning. First, it's =
going to be hard to justify to yourself or your client to replace the =
coverage. Second, if that is your only source of business, you need to =
expand your horizons.
Do the right thing.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: ShampooRic@aol.com=20
To: ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com=20
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [LTPC-discussions] An Easy Exercise
Getting legal clarification now on our contract is important, for both =
the vested and non vested agent. If you are staying in the business =
then finding out now if you can work with your clients should be a =
priority.
I repeat again I am not giving legal advice, I am not an attorney. =
But I think we all might have clients that might benefit from our =
expertise. An example would be a client that we could not write and has =
a waiting period for that condition which might expire soon. =20
The nature of our business with policies changing, and rates =
increasing from carriers, I would rather know now if I can help them =
instead of approaching them 18 months from now. We do that person a =
disservice if we do not help them sooner if we legally can. =20
Vested agents should not risk their renewals, but if this contract can =
be challenged then we should look at it. Doug is right, a lawsuit =
should be the last option. Maybe the court of public opinion in other =
areas might help. But getting a legal opinion on this should be done.
The contract has been sent to a law firm and we should have some =
opinion in a few days. Will post this when it comes in.
Richard
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C34940.2DD0D060
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A "client" is some one who has =
purchased a policy.=20
If they got turned down, they are not a client of LTPC. Service=20
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>LTPC does not, nor did not sell =
Short Term=20
care, Home care only, Annuities, Life insurance, Med-sups, or a number =
of Senior=20
market products. There is no conflict if LTPC does not market the =
product.=20
Service them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That is why it is called a NON-COMPETE=20
clause.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The ONLY conflict is if you go to =
someone you sold=20
and placed in a LTC product and replace the policy. That is known as =
churning.=20
First, it's going to be hard to justify to yourself or your client to =
replace=20
the coverage. Second, if that is your only source of business, you need =
to=20
expand your horizons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do the right thing.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DShampooRic@aol.com=20
href=3D"mailto:ShampooRic@aol.com">ShampooRic@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com=20
href=3D"mailto:ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com">ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 13, 2003 =
8:53 AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [LTPC-discussions] =
An Easy=20
Exercise</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
face=3DArial size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">Getting legal clarification now on our contract =
is=20
important, for both the vested and non vested agent. If you are =
staying=20
in the business then finding out now if you can work with your =
clients =20
should be a priority.<BR><BR>I repeat again I am not giving legal =
advice, I am=20
not an attorney. But I think we all might have clients that =
might=20
benefit from our expertise. An example would be a client that we =
could=20
not write and has a waiting period for that condition which might =
expire=20
soon. <BR><BR>The nature of our business with policies changing, =
and=20
rates increasing from carriers, I would rather know now if I can help =
them=20
instead of approaching them 18 months from now. We do that =
person a=20
disservice if we do not help them sooner if we legally can. =20
<BR><BR>Vested agents should not risk their renewals, but if this =
contract can=20
be challenged then we should look at it. Doug is right, a =
lawsuit should=20
be the last option. Maybe the court of public opinion in other =
areas=20
might help. But getting a legal opinion on this should be=20
done.<BR><BR>The contract has been sent to a law firm and we should =
have some=20
opinion in a few days. Will post this when it comes=20
in.<BR><BR>Richard<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C34940.2DD0D060--